Re: General Relativity - Some problems and objections

On 25 juin, 12:01, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mluttgens wrote on Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:06:53 -0700:





On 24 juin, 11:58, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mluttgens wrote on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:04:33 -0700:

General Relativity - Some problems and objections

And what theory is free of problems and objections? A theory without
problems and applicable everywhere would be a "theory of everything",
but this is an *ideal*. Science is always incomplete and the goal is to
be today less incomplete that yesterday.

You give some well-known problems of GR as the absence of
energy-momentum tensor, the problem of singularities, or the problem of
cosmological constant (dark energy).

The biggest problem is the presence of singularities. But there are
others, cf. for exemple ref. 4.

Yes the problem of singularities is one important problem.

The problem of energy is also very important, just as the problem of
time; this latter is one of reasons that General relativity cannot be
consistently quantized.

The problem of cosmological constant gives the bigest mistake in physics!
Error of about 10^120 in magnitude...

Unfortunately, you also give some very wrong stuff and invalid
criticisms. In your bibliography you mix some reliable resources with
other merely showing the confusion of their authors.

Could you separate the perls from the swines?

Avoid Crother claims about r and other stuff, Bearden doc, and the
bautforum page.

Thank you very much!

Marcel Luttgens

(1)http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node23.html(2)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g4h24q53728u3l23/(3)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0711/0711.1145.pdf(4)
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/15196-problems-general-
relativity.html
(5)http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath588/kmath588.htm(6)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_solutions_in_general_relativity(7)
http://www.mat.unb.br/~matcont/28_8.pdf(8)
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:9afPmXKCQkUJ:www.cheniere.org/

techpapers/General%2520Relativistic%2520Violation%2520of%2520the%
2520Conservation%2520of%2520Energy%2520Law.doc+objections+to+general
+relativity&cd=79&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr

(9)http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PIRT-2008.pdf

Of course, I want to remark that none of the known deficiences of GR
invalidate its excellent experimental and observational support.
It is just that a generalized theory (without the deficiencies) will be
developed containing to GR as special case.

Regards.

Thank you for your honest response.

Marcel Luttgens

__________________________________________

Criticism of the basis of the general relativity theory (1)

Many GRT inconsistencies are well-known:

1) the principle of correspondence is violated (the limiting
transition to the case without gravitation cannot exist without
introducing the artificial external conditions);
2) the conservation laws are absent;
3) the relativity of accelerations contradicts the experimental facts
(rotating liquids under space conditions have the shape of
ellipsoids, whereas non-rotating ones - the spherical shape); 4) the
singular solutions exist.

(Usually, any theory is considered to be inapplicable in similar
cases, but GRT for saving its "universal character" begins to
construct fantastic pictures, such as black holes, Big Bang, etc.).

Incompatibillity of general relativity with the Conservations laws
(2)

A Critique of General Relativity
Wasley S. Krogdahl
Professor Emeritus, Astronomy and Physics University of Kentucky (3)

The last major implication of general relativity was the prediction
of “black holes”. These are implied by the Schwarzschild metric,
which has a singular surface (event horizon) at a specified distance
about a compact mass. Point singularities abound in physics, but a
black hole is unique. This of itself should be
grounds for caution. Furthermore, there is no unambiguous test for
the observational identification of a presumptive black hole. It
cannot be discriminated from a possible “non-black hole” of equal
mass and radius. One may therefore be forgiven a healthy skepticism
in the confident identification of a multitude of these objects;
their implied existence should be considered a possible failure of
the theory. This is not the only caveat. Photons presumably cannot
escape from a black hole.
What happens, therefore, to a photon emitted radially within a black
hole? It cannot decelerate and reverse itself, as would a mass
particle. It must be redshifted to extinction. This would violate the
equation for gravitational redshift.
Some of the earliest applications of general relativity were to
models of the universe. It is characteristic of all such models that
they are finite in mass, volume and age. As was pointed out by E. A.
Milne in the 1930s, they must therefore have unique mass and velocity
centroids, features which relativity was presumably intended to
avoid. Milne also showed that expanding models required that matter
be created at the boundary during expansion and that oscillating
models required the destruction of matter during the contracting
phase. These models therefore lacked cosmic background radiation,
though this was not remarked at the
time since the cosmic background radiation would not be discovered
until several decades later.
A consequential objection to all general relativistic models of the
universe is that they are hydrodynamic. That is, they postulate that
the matter of the universe is spread continuously throughout. The
real universe, however, is atomistic and granular. It consists of
discrete objects from electrons and protons to molecules, planets,
stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. General relativity is an
essentially field theory, not capable of accounting for the granular
appearance of the cosmic background radiation or the vast vacancies
between galaxies. The theory is also ambiguous in several respects.
For one, it cannot say whether its model universes are oscillating,
static, or forever expanding. It depends upon observation to identify
which kind of universe is the actual one. This is not a telling
objection, since appeals to observation are always in order for any
theory. One may view such uncertainty, however, as a comparative
disadvantage with respect to a theory whose model(s) is (are)
specific. Related to this ambiguity is the value of the “cosmological
constant”. It could conceivably be positive, negative or identically
zero (non- existent). A complete theory would ideally be able to give
a reason for a particular choice. The cosmological constant is said
to be required in order to account for a presumed acceleration of the
expansion of the universe. However, this hypothetical acceleration is
rather a consequence of neglecting to take proper account of time
dilation in clocks receding at high velocity. The acceleration is not
real. Moreover, a positive value would imply a force of gravitation
between two masses which, beyond a certain point, increases with
distance; this is a highly counterintuitive result. The general
theory is mute concerning the controversy over the value of the
Hubble “constant”. Kinematic relativity, a Lorentz invariant theory,
resolves the controversy by showing that both sides are correct. The
Hubble “constant” is not constant but increases with distance, as the
observations show.
General relativity has nothing to say concerning “dark matter” or
“dark energy”, currently described as “mysterious” and requiring much
further research.
The presence of “dark matter” was first implied by observations of
the motions of
stars at the outskirts of galaxies; they revolved about their
respective galactic nuclei at velocities far greater than could be
justified by the amount of visible matter in those galaxies. The
seeming discrepancy is great; “dark matter” would have to amount to
some six times that of visible or “baryonic” matter (the sum of the
masses of all the protons, neutrons, electrons and other fundamental
particles). [...]
The mystique of general relativity and “space-time curvature” has
proven to be
extremely powerful. At least some of its hold must reside in the very
mystery evoked by the term “space-time curvature” (often mistakenly
referred to as “the curvature of space” in popular literature).
However, the mystery may be effectively dispelled by noting that the
phrase is merely equivalent to the term “gravitational acceleration”.
If there is no space-time curvature, there is no gravitational
acceleration; if there is no gravitational acceleration, there is no
space-time curvature.

Problems with General Relativity (4)

The areas of issue are:

1. The red shift.
2. Matter and energy not equivalent
3. Problem with the metric model
4. Cosmological issues
5. General Relativity is dimensionally incomplete 6. General
relativity is mathematically incomplete 7. Complexity

General Relativity and the Principle of Inertia (5)

However, the field equations of general relativity are actually not
applicable to arbitrary coordinate systems; they are applicable
“only” to the members of one specific class of coordinate systems
that are all diffeomorphically equivalent to each other. This is
admittedly a very large class – much larger than (for example) the
class of coordinate systems related- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -

- Afficher le texte des messages précédents -...

plus de détails »

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rethinking_Science_=A9___=5BAgain=5D?=
    ... "Now the first tentative hint of a deviation from general relativity ... "One idea is that the entire universe exists on a membrane, or brane, ... I liked the "exotic explanation" part. ... has cracks, it may be incorrect, or perhaps even incomplete. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Rethinking Science - Not necessary.
    ... "Now the first tentative hint of a deviation from general relativity ... "One idea is that the entire universe exists on a membrane, or brane, ... I liked the "exotic explanation" part. ... has cracks, it may be incorrect, or perhaps even incomplete. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Universe in a Grain of Sand
    ... quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. ... use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum ... understanding of the universe consists of an uneasy union between ... This makes the center of a black hole both enormously massive ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Absolute Simultaneity and the Speed of Light
    ... to a universe that's billions of years old, ... evidence for young-earth creationism at all. ... on to general relativity, especially because many ... Yet the YEC input to it too... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the universe spatially infinite?
    ... the geometry of our universe could be that of a flat 3-torus. ... Spacetime flat on the cosmic scale and curved locally where there ... Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity ...
    (sci.physics)